● This. . . Is. . .
This demand to see his taxes is all about class warfare and conservatives should oppose this on instinct. It’s time we stopped letting people be attacked for their success. It’s time we stopped judging people on their money and instead judged them on their actions and views. It’s no wonder we get crappy presidents if we’re basing our decisions on the deductions they take on their taxes.
● Spin v. Reality: This issue is misleading in any event. Romney actually has released his taxes for 2010 and 2011. So where does this idea come from that he won’t release his taxes? It comes from the Democrats demanding that he release 10 years worth of taxes, and they are spinning his “failure” to produce those as Romney refusing to release any of his taxes. Understand the truth, he’s already released as many years as the IRS requires you to keep and he’s released more than John Kerry did in 2004 -- Kerry released only his 2003 taxes. So why should Romney release 10 years worth? According to the MSM, Romney’s father “set the standard by releasing 12 years.” Really? The standard is 12 years? Then why did Obama release only 6 years? Why did Hillary only release 6 years and only after Obama prodded her? Why have only 13 Democrats and 3 Republicans of the 535 members of Congress released their tax returns. Where is this standard Romney is supposedly violating. . . or does it just apply to the Romney family?
● The Smell of Desperation: The fact the Democrats are pushing this tax returns issue tells us they are desperate. They need a diversions so they can avoid talking about Obama’s record. But this strategy isn’t working. Why? Two reasons. First, the public ultimately doesn’t care. No one is going to make their decision based on how many years of taxes Romney releases. Secondly, Romney is playing this right. If he releases his taxes, the Democrats will comb through those taxes and will do their best to keep “finding” new information to dribble out week by week until the election. By refusing to release these records, all he’s left the Democrats with is speculation and speculation gets old fast.
Indeed, we see this already. This weekend, there were a series of articles about what Romney could possibly be “hiding.” These articles were less than effective. The new talking points appear to be that Romney won’t release his taxes because he’s afraid it will anger conservatives. Their reasoning? Those taxes might show (1) that he’s worth more than people think, (2) that he gave money to Harvard, his alma matter, and (2) that he gave lots of money to the Mormon Church. You tell me, is any of this news? And how will it turn off the base to learn that Romney gave to his church or his alma matter? And if his income bothers you, then it doesn’t really matter if he’s worth twenty million or thirty million, does it? But this is all they have. . . unless Romney releases more taxes.
That’s why Romney’s smart to refuse to release any more of his taxes. In fact, there’s an excellent article on why it’s a trap for Romney to play this game at the American Spectator (LINK). The point is that the Democrats have always done this when they needed to run away from their records, they try to create mini-scandals to keep the public’s attention on the Republican. And to do that, they take meaningless things and spin them into scandals. As soon as one “scandal” is exhausted, they move on to the next. So all Romney will do by releasing his taxes is feed their scandal machine, which is currently out of ammunition.
● Cowards: That brings us to the likes of George Will, Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, and National Review, among others. These people represent the “weak knees” of conservatism. They are so accustomed to surrendering to every Democratic demand that they get nervous whenever Republicans refuse. In their minds, the Democrats are always more clever, are always standing on the high ground, and always have the public on their side. Naturally, they want Romney to play right into Democratic hands in the hopes of “defusing the issue,” which is another way of saying “admit he’s wrong for being rich and beg for mercy.” Forget that!
Interestingly, these are the same people who keep attacking Romney for not fighting aggressively enough. Rove recently claimed Romney is losing because he’s not fighting back against each and every allegation (which is both untrue and is stupid advice). Keep in mind, Rove was the man who ran Bush’s political machine which operated on the principle of never defending itself. . . ever. And Kristol just unbelievably wrote this: “Does this year’s presidential campaign strike you as strikingly petty?” Well Bill, it would be less petty if talking heads like yourself weren’t obsessing with Obama’s distractions. And this is after Charles Krauthammer of Kristol’s Weekly Standard whined that Romney needs to apologize for RomneyCare. . . for no good reason whatsoever.
I think it’s time we handed guys like Kristol and Rove their walking papers. They’ve never been right and now is no different. They are aiding and abetting the Democrats once again and they need to be called on this. Fortunately, Romney has no intention of following their advice. He’s called this a privacy issue and his surrogates are out there counter-attacking Obama for not releasing his college records. Man it’s nice to have a candidate who doesn’t surrender at the first sign of shots being fired!
● A Little Mirth: Finally, I leave you with this excellent bit of photoshopping by tryanmax. This was created in response to our desire to see politicians wear more jumpsuits. Yeah, jumpsuits. And why the heck not?! They’re showmen and all good showmen wear jumpsuits. Enjoy!
72 comments:
Andrew,
This election is looking almost TOO good. I agree with you. Most of these pundits have lost their ability to read the tea leaves, if they ever had it in the first place. I think these "experts" have done enough damage with their positions and comments. It is time they are placed in the dustbin of history.
It is interesting to me that Romney, like Bush, appears to be trying too hard to avoid "the big blunder." I can't say that Rove has always been wrong, but these are very good points. Obama avoided having to answer questions about his past and got away with it. Certainly, he had the lame stream media who refused to do any vetting at all, but ultimately, people wanted a change, and McCain was seen as a little feckless dork. I think people are resisting all these "distractions" quite nicely, and the alternative media is making certain we don't get sidetracked from "It's the economy stupid."
Andrew, "excellent" is a strong word.
Speaking of English usage, the world is in dire need of editors, and I'm not criticizing the site. (Commentarama is amazingly error-free considering the wealth of articles and minimum of editing.) No, I'm referring to Kristol's "bad English" when he wrote: “Does this year’s presidential campaign strike you as strikingly petty?” (emph. added) As prolific as Kristol is, and as I'm fairly certain he has at least one editor, together they ought to know that word repetition, except as a parallel device, is considered bad form in our language. Somebody get that man a thesaurus.
That's my nitpick for the day. Thank you.
Andrew - Thank goodness. I was wondering why he had to release his tax returns just for the very reasons you state. Yeah, we know he rich and took all those legal tax deductions that are in the tax code.
I love that very few of Obama's attacks have gotten any traction. And I agree with you about the "conservative" pundits. Is it that they dislike Romney so much or that they are so afraid of being called "partisan" that they actually go out of their way to harm him?
I have a great deal of respect for George Will, Bill Kristol, and the people at National Review (Rove, not so much), who really are not squishes--they've taken it to their leftie opponents time and time again. But nobody I know (aside from the handful of committed Dem hacks) cares about seeing Romney's tax returns. I don't think they care about seeing anyone's tax returns.
Notice also just how quickly Nancy Pelosi backed away from her demands that Romney release more years worth of tax returns once there were stirrings toward a movement to demand the same of ALL candidates to federal office.
Joel, I agree. The real story of this election is how quickly all the good signs for Romney are coming together and how there's really no evidence that anything Obama has done is effective. Yet, these same pundits just won't stop crying that the sky is falling. It makes me wonder if they even care about winning?
Jed, I think Romney's strategy is to avoid the big mistake, take a constant steady stream of shots at Obama over the economy, and let the alternative media do all the dirty work. And that makes a lot of sense because (1) average people only care about the big picture and in the big picture all you are seeing is Obama flailing around and avoiding talking about his record or the future, and (2) the people who are about the side issues are the ones who read the alternative media, so they are taken care of as well.
It's really a solid plan to keep the focus on this being a referendum on Obama. And the suggestions that he needs to turn himself into the topic of conversation are really bad advice. Obama is doing a slow motion implode. And when your opponent implodes, don't get in the way... just nudge them now and then.
tryanmax, Excellent is always the word when you're talking about photoshopped jumpsuits! LOL!
I had the same thought about Kristol, by the way. That's a rather amateurish and glaring mistake for a writer to make, even one who writes as often as he does. My first thought was that it was intentional, but I can't quite see the point, so I assume it was lack of editing.
Fortunately, Commentrama hires only tip qualty edittors and we is 96.2% errer freE!
Bev, A very subtle and effective comment! :) Exactly! Why should anyone be shocked to learn that Romney took the deductions that are in the tax code for anyone to take? There is no reason unless the goal is a spiteful desire to wage class warfare.
On the conservative pundits, after all these years of watching them, I've come to the conclusion that they simply like losing. They have a taste for it and they've become gun shy of standing up to liberals. So every time some conservative does something "controversial" (read: which liberals don't like) this core of pundits rushes out to join the liberals in attacking the conservative. It needs to stop.
T-Rav, I have more respect for Will than I do Kristol by a long shot, but these guys are the "effete end of conservatism." They routinely counsel surrender and playing into Democratic hands to not make waves.
Libertarian Advocate, I got a good laugh out of that. I also thought her comments may have helped blow a huge hole in this argument when she made her table pounding argument that Romney needs to release his taxes and then immediately said she had no such obligation but would do so if she ever decided to run for President. That was brazen and blatantly hypocritical, and I think you could almost feel the shock in the room when she said it. Since that comment, this issue has begun to collapse. And with no new information from Romney to feed it, it seems almost played out at this point.
I was concerned about this issue because it keeps coming up on the right and because the MSM has spun it to say that Romney hasn't released anything. But if he has released some of his taxes, then it's clear to me that the demand for more is just a political attack. Excellent article!
Ellen, Given that he fought this battle in the primaries already, it struck me as strange when they kept saying "he won't release his taxes." So I looked it up. Sadly, most people won't go looking it up. And it would be helpful if guys like Kristol were out there saying "he has released them" rather than playing along.
Andrew, It would help a lot of conservatives stopped attacking their own side. This goes on every election. The left does it too, but at least they don't seem to do it so publicly.
tryanmax, I concur with excellent. It's fitting. Now we need one of Obama!
Ellen, It would help a lot, but that's not going to change. Especially in the modern television era, a lot of these people (like Rove) make their money by attacking rather than analyzing. So being calm, rational and correct is less important than getting people excited to tune in to you the next time.
Kristol and Will aren't like that, but a lot of the other television "conservatives" are.
Ellen and tryanmax, Maybe we can start a trend! Soon everyone will be wearing jumpsuits! Science fiction tells us that's the future. Maybe Commentarama is the place that causes that to happen?
Question: Does a straitjacket count as a jumpsuit?
Only if it comes with feet, like Winnie the Pooh pajamas! :)
I don't care what anyone makes as far as income. I don't have it, but don't want anybody else's either, so the class warfare strategy doesn't work with me.
I'm glad I don't pay attention to these other so-called conservatives with their talking heads BS. I get all the information I need, just not from them.
The Dems strategy of diversion--"Look over here, while we do this over there", also doesn't work with me. I like diversion plays of my own, so they can't fool me--I know what they're up to.
I hope Romney keeps making them dance by not caving.
P.S. Who needs the straight jacket? I warn you, I've certified myself sane!
Jen, I'm the same way. It doesn't matter to me what other people have. How does that change my life? But sadly, for many people (particularly liberals) it seems to matter to them a lot. They get very upset at the idea of other people having more than they do.
The Democratic diversions don't affect me either. I am perfectly capable of thinking about multiple things at once and at distinguishing what is important and what isn't. And apparently, the public is too as none of Obama's diversions have gotten any traction.
On the conservatives, I don't mean to just point at these guys. I think there is far too much infighting across the board. It needs to stop. Why attack someone you agree with on 99% of issues?
Don't make me explain things, Andrew! It's hard enough to type at all, with my arms crossed over each other like this. :-/
It's the jumpsuit advocacy, isn't it?
When we start raising money for the Rama-vention, we should sell Winnie the Pooh footie straitjackets!!!
As for the tax thing, the right needs to shut up. In fact, whenever the Left tosses one of their craptacular grenades out to the MSM, the right needs to --- you guessed it --- shut up! This subject would have died the appropriate death already if the RWMedia didn't keep helping the MSM recycle it.
Andrew, I know what you mean about the infighting, and think it needs to stop as well. I can't help but think it has to do with ego, and who gets to be the first to say something of significance.
The biggest problem with Romney releasing six or twelve years of taxes is that he is exactly what we need in a president--an entrepeneur and a businessman with far-flung investments. That means the returns will be extensive and convoluted. The average American tax-filer is a wage-earner with a few scattered deductions. On tax day, half say "how much am I going to pay?" and the other half gush: "look how much I'm going to get back." That's the extent of the complications for them. Few understand the difference between earnings and ordinary income. Most could never comprehend the complexities of the returns and deductions of a wealthy, successful businessman, and that opens the door to demagoguery for his critics.
Romney's returns will contain two things: Hundreds of perfectly legitimate deductions based on the byzantine tax code written largely by Democrats. Second, no matter how much he paid in taxes, those who don't understand complicated returns will insist "he didn't pay enough." But unlike our beloved Secretary of the Treasury, at least Romney will have filed and paid.
I think he should do one of two things. My preference is that he just not release them and let the few who actually care continue to bitch. But, if he is considering releasing them at all, he should do so now and get it over with. There are perfectly valid explanations for every single deduction, and he could even turn the argument against the "eat the rich crowd" if he plays it right.
And if he chooses the latter option, he should do so on one condition: "I will release my tax records on the day that President Obama releases his college transcripts and opens his records from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard, including his applications showing his claims of birthplace and citizenship status."
rlaWTX, That would be awesome! The Winnie the Pooh footie straitjacket! LOL! :)
I agree completely about the craptacular grenades. The right needs to take a page from the left and learn to never buy into anything the left tosses out there. For decades now, I've seen it where whatever the left suggests, there are always conservatives/Republicans who are ready to use that to attack our own side.
I don't understand this impulse? And it's not just the same one or two people every time, it seems to be a widespread phenomena where different conservatives will do it at different times.
Jen, I'm honestly not sure what motivates it? Some of it is ego. Some is rating driven. The RINOs used to do it as a matter of course. Some of it is fighting for the direction of the party.
But whatever it is, conservatives/Republicans need to learn the difference between arguing policy and buying into smears.
Look at how easily the left brought down Herman Cain with help from the right, whereas leftists almost never get brought down for much worse. The difference is that the left seeks to defuse their own scandals, whereas too many on our side jump on them try to make them bigger.
I go on record that I refuse to wear a jumpsuit as they are unnatural and against the natural order of nature. Furthermore, they go against everything that I believe to be "the right thing to do (or wear)"! Therefore it is with great sadness that I must resign my post as member of...oh, wait, did someone say "feety pajamas"?? Oh, now that is something that I can really get on board with!! Count me in!
Lawhawk, I agree. All his taxes will show is that he's like every other business in the country -- lots of income from different sources, lots of deductions that average people have never heard of. And the left will try to demagogue every single one of them. "Oh my, did you know Romney took a deduction for a trip to Hong Kong! Was that a vacation or was he really on a business trip?! The monster!"
I think he's smart not to release them.
But if he does decide to release them, he should absolutely tie it to Obama releasing his own hidden records.
Bev, So they are both unnatural and go against the natural order of nature? Them's strong words! Well said! (Somewhere an editor is cringing.) :)
I'm not so sure I'd want to wear a jumpsuit either, even if it is a requirement to live in the world of the future. But feety pajamas! I'd be all in favor of that! :)
Andrew:RE:"On the conservative pundits, after all these years of watching them, I've come to the conclusion that they simply like losing."
I think what you mean is that conservative pundits - epsly the NR version - are attempting to follow the Buckley model and engage the political world through a Socratic model of reasoned dialog leading to truth. So they concede the left's points when made with the correct format with the idea that the left will reciprocate and engage in a dialog.
Unfortunately, the Socratic model has been rendered null and void by postmodernism. So when Alinskites use the correct format to gain a point with the conservatives, they then take their MSM football and go home, leaving Socrates standing there addressing empty air.
This is one reason why I stopped reading NR with the exception of Jonah who "gets it" I think. NR conservatives are bringing a knife to a gun fight. This has to change.
rlaWTX, Thanks for saying they should shut up. I meant to say "STFU", but already posted my comment.
Andrew, I don't know about you, but to me, ratings do have something to do with ego. The left does damage control, and the right just does damage.
Jen, That's true. Rating and ego are related. So are ratings and money.
STFU is one of the more useful inventions of modern techno speak. So it WTF and LOL! All good. :)
K, I think that's exactly right. There is a strain of conservative thinking which very much sees politics as a debating society, where you make polite points and subtle arguments and you expect your opponent to do the same. And at the end of the day, everyone shakes hands and the side with the better argument wins, and all the politics stops until the next debate.
But that's not the modern world. The modern world is one of violent, nasty exchanges. It is about showmanship and marketing. It is about winning your point in any way possible. And politics is a 24/7 game to be played in all arenas.
And when you spend your time trying to use polite reasoning and the other guy is using harsh sarcasm, you will lose. That's how guys like Bill Maher get away with what they do -- they invite people who aren't willing to take them on on the same terms. Essentially, they invite knife fighters to a gun fight.
All that said, there are conservatives who simply like losing. I recall so many of them from the Country Club days in the early 1980s. They really thought their side was wrong and they would do anything they could to stop their side from winning. A guy like McCain is the modern version of that. He almost always begins from the premise that the Democrats are right and his side is motivated by some ill motive.
yeah, Jen, STFU is closer to the emotion of my statement...
In defense of William F. Buckley, one of the founders of modern conservatism, his Socratic method rarely included conceding anything to the other side. In fact, he was excellent at tearing the premises of the other side to pieces without yielding an inch of ground. He was also an expert at using the best tool of all--laughter. He would often leave his opponents with their jaws hanging open as the audience howled at Buckley's ability to mock them and leave them looking like fools. Even liberals quoted him, as long as they weren't the current target of his wrath.
National Review was a conservative magazine when Buckley was still in charge. It was first and foremost the counter to The New Republic, the house organ for traditional liberal Democratic thought. Today, National Review and particularly NRO has slipped into the hands of young neo-conservatives with nothing like Buckley's intellect, nor any of his abilities to use it. Worse yet, the writers and editors haven't even remained particularly neo-con. Their "success" has turned them into the very "establishment Republicans" that Buckley set out to fight (rather successfully, I might add). Buckley would have torn a Bill Maher up verbally, and he would have done it without using a single profanity (though he was known to have a very large profane vocabulary in private). Today's NR staff is simply too easily intimidated. Richard Nixon was a particular target of Buckley's for his willingness to concede too much to the Democrats (he was downright vicious about Nixon's performances in the presidential debates).
The problem at National Review is not Buckley's intellectualism, it's the lack of Buckley's intellectualism and wit.
rlaWTX, It's very useful. :)
Lawhawk, Well said!
I never had a single problem with Buckley. He made solid points and did so with devastating wit. I don't think I ever disagreed with him and he never lost an argument that I saw. (He would have crushed Maher.)
For me, the problems with National Review didn't begin to appear until the very late 1990s, early 2000s. They seemed to lose the wit and humor, they started to provide very bland analysis just like I could find anywhere else in the MSM, they became intellectually timid, and they seemed to shift focus. I think you describe it perfectly when you say NR slipped into the hands of neo-conservatives who have become the establishment Buckley fought against. That is how I see NR today, as the mouthpiece of the establishment GOP, not as something representing conservatism, and certainly not as a leader or generator of conservative ideas.
Now T-Rav will probably need a second straight jacket. :(
OMG, I love the photoshopped picture!! :)
And I also love having a candidate who doesn't bend over backward to please the opposition. You go, Romney!
Crispy, I'd call it good times all around! :)
Andrew: Okay, I missed that. I have assumed McCain was just a vainglorious fool who just liked to stand in the media spotlight. I am interested in your take on this so perhaps you could elaborate in more detail.
Is it "Camel's nose" statist - Demo lite conservatives vs pro-liberty cons, or is it neo-cons verses paleo cons? So many distinctions these days.
It's always so much more fun here than it is at other blogs. :D
Whenever you hear someone complain that Romney won't release his tax returns then pointedly bring up some school transcripts that the other side keeps sequestered – I guarantee the resulting kicking, screaming and "not the same" remarks will prove very entertaining.
Heh
P.S.: I think it was LawHawk a few weeks back who asked if I were anybody famous. Nope. Just a poor boy who grew up in California's Great Central Valley when it was a nicer place.
K, He's never directly said, "I hate conservatives." But his actions have left little doubt that he doesn't like us or that he likes us less than his Democratic friends.
He routinely says nasty things about conservatives and fellow Republicans, but he's almost entirely complimentary about Democrats, even when they're crapping on him. He's always jumped onto any group that sought to frustrate Republican goals -- like filibusters or trying to force through Republican appointments. He's reached across the aisle for legislation (like McCain Feingold) which fundamentally goes against Republican interests and would hurt our side.
His history as I recall it is a never-ending series of attempts to frustrate our side at key moments, followed by him going on Meet The Press and giving credit and very useable quotes to the Democrats. I can only interpret that as him being happier with their policies than ours.
Doc, It just happens that way! But I'll bet you not a lot of other places end up talking about Winnie the Pooh Footy Straight Jackets!
SuWei, We have a fame requirement to participate. LOL! Actually, that would probably exclude all of us, so... no, we don't. :)
Any way, you're absolutely right that this issue gets the "it's not the same" treatment. And the reason they claim it's not the same is because they don't want the rules to apply to their guy. That's the only reason. If Romney was the one with missing school records, they would be screaming about it like it was a national crisis.
Does being an Old-Style Trekker count? I'm not of much help when it comes to the movies (I've only seen 1-4 and "First Contact". Seriously, did they REALLY expect me to believe THAT was supposed to be the same Zephram Cochran that was portrayed in the TOS episode "Metamorphosis"??) Nor am I up on many of the various NextGen series that were done after 1980 (although I've seen enough of them to know the main characters). However, when it comes to Star Trek TOS I'm a babbling font of information. :o)
Oh, I know! That is not Zephram Cochran. That's not even close. Plus, they got the whole history of warp drive wrong. Earth fought a war against the Romulans before they had warp drive! Grrr.
SuWei,
How is your knowledge on Firefly and Serenity?
Joel, Both are excellent and at some point, I should delve into the politics.
Dear Editors of Commentarama: You should know that your posts have caused the patient known as "T-Rav" to require a full body straitjacket, complete with a ball gag (don't ask) and several rounds of electroshock therapy. In addition, for the past ten hours he has done little more than gurgle something about "motherf@#$ing kittens." We hope you're happy.
Man, That T-Rav guy really flipped out! Was it something we said? And did this full body straitjacket have feet?
Wow, what have I missed? Bill Buckley, Zephram Cochran and T-Rav gone catatonic! *rimshot* What a night!
tryanmax, It's pretty interesting how the mind of Commentarama twists and turns around here!
I'd like to see Obama's High School and College Transcripts. I know it may take time after all it took what two years to finally get his birth certificate.
And while we are at it I'd like a note from a doctor stating that Al Franken is actually a human. I know, I know the Spacer Alieners are nuts but still how hard is it to get a note from a doctor.....
Let me also just add that even in the jumpsuited future, Commentaram bucks trends. While everyone else will be toddling around in their Mao-wear, we will be rocking faces off with lots and lots of fringe!
Indi, Apparently, college transcripts and admissions packets are harder to fake than birth certificates! ;)
tryanmax, You know it! We always go against the tide, be it fringe or the footy jumpsuits. :)
Funny, I'm watching an ad for the Total Recall remake as I type this. Huh.
Anyway, I once read a book that contained all of Bill Buckley's "Letters to the Editor" during his tenure at National Review and some of his responses. Pretty funny stuff. Too bad his son went whacko and endorsed Obama.
T-Rav, Buckley was awesome. I don't know what happened to his son. I used to watch Buckley on PBS on Saturday afternoons. He would bring on guests and talk (not yell) with them for half an hour, and the guy was amazingly sharp.
I can't say I'm excited about the Total Recall remake, but I'm interested.
I will admit, I was a late watcher to Dark Knight Rises, but I will admit that I found the whole commentary on Bain laughable. In fact, come to think about it, does Romney have some resemblance to an aged Bruce Wayne?
T-Rav, I miss Buckley and his "sock you in the $%^*& face commentary" Thankfully, there's still youtube to catch the videos of him doing it.
I have a book of Buckley speeches that I picked up as Borders was going out of business. Can't say that I'm more than a couple in, even now. I have this issue where, even though I can read fast, I tend not to. That goes double when I'm really enjoying something (backwards, I know). So, with Buckley, it goes something like quadruple. Plus, he throws me with unfamiliar words unlike anyone else.
I am one of the outliers that is actually looking forward to the Total Recall remake. Just from the previews, I think it is going to be better than the original, and I really like the original.
obiwan, I think the whole Bain attack, especially tying it to Bane from the film was really silly. And I can't see that having won them a single vote.
Youtube is often great for catching things that "used to be." :)
tryanmax, I was ok on the original, but it didn't wow me. I am sort of looking forward to the remake only there have been very few worthwhile remakes lately. So I'm not holding out much hope, though I do want to see it.
Kristol may be right on some issues, but in this case he's just plain wrong and I see no reason to help the democrats and Obama.
To demonstrate more neocon idiocy, Kristol also showed how little he knows about the Second Ammendment recently, during this exchange with Mike Wallace:
"KRISTOL: I am a squish on gun control. I agree substantive with Kirsten, you can -- the reason those numbers have changed in that poll is originally in 1968 after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, gun control made controlling handguns. That is unreasonable. I think people have a right to handguns and hunting rifles. I don't think we have a right to semi-automatic machine -- quasi machine guns which can use -- shoot 100 bullets at a time.
And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they're being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control if they separate it clearly from the desire to take away everyone's handguns or hunting rifles.
WALLACE: All right. Good luck with that, though.
KRISTOL: I'm just giving out free advice to people.
You can put more pressure on moderate Republicans. It's not as if Republicans from New York and Illinois and California couldn't be -- that President Obama couldn't do what President Clinton did in the 90s and put pressure on them.
But it is -- President Obama at least on this one is just unwilling to take a strong stance."
Good job Kristol. Are you sure you can't help the democrats erode our liberties even more?
Putz. He doesn't even understand why we have a Second Ammendment let alone the purpose of it.
Quasi-machine gun, really? Ooohhh scary. Will someone please smack him?
And I'm just as angry at the rest of the neocons. Krauthammer, O'Reilly, Rove. Shut up already. They bring nothing helpful to the table and are actually helping the donks with their squishy conservatism they hope to make popular.
BTW Andrew, great post!
I hope Mitt stands firm and thumbs his nose at those who demand all of his tax returns.
LOL at the photo! Frampton...I mean Romney Comes Alive tour!
Two words: Fringe genes. It'll be all the rage.
Thanks Ben! I hadn't heard that exchange, but it doesn't surprise me in the least because this is the kind of thing I keep hearing from the establishment set like Kristol... "the Democrats are right, they just go a little too far. If they wouldn't go so far, we should support them." Wrong!
It's that kind of thinking which drives me nuts with these guys. There is basically no Democratic policy they won't support and no principle they won't surrender.
The Romney Comes Alive Tour! LOL! Nicely done! :)
Post a Comment